Copyright violation from American AI hoovering up all the data is okie dokie unless it’s used by peasants to threaten technology corporations.
I’m not defending them it’s just comical hypocrisy, and ans I doubt China AI will have the same kneecapped coding capabilities.
Kimi K3.1 pro, had reverse engineering information pulled from its training data. So at least some of them are.
Chinese models are kneecapping Tiananmen Square and Winnie the Pooh, they’ll happily do anything else.
But at least they are open (Most of them at least).
So there’s at least the possibility to lever these restrictions away.
While I agree that open-weight is better than nothing, it is not the same as open-source.
Having a truly open-source model would be wonderful and it would also allow us to verify what data it is trained on and whether it has the right to use that data.The Open Source Initiative’s definition of a fully open-source AI model includes the training data as a key element. Some developers wonder, however, how feasible it is to distribute the enormous datasets required.
He says Stanford HAI has staked out a specific bar: alignment with the Linux Foundation’s Model Openness Framework at its top tier, the “Open Science” class – meaning the code, the training data (or a thoroughly documented, auditable account of it), and the tooling are all released, not just the weights, alongside a real way for outside researchers and communities to download, run, study, contribute to, and modify the work. Anything short of that, in his view, forecloses entire lines of research: You can’t, for example, study how a model’s training data shapes its cultural assumptions, audit it for how fairly it represents different populations, or test new architectures at the scale where genuinely new behavior shows up. You can only observe a finished system from the outside and guess at why it does what it does.
This is another reason why I’ve reduced my dependency on AI considerably over the past few weeks, and I no longer personally pay for any AI tools/services at all.
It’s insane to think someone would pay for something and after using it for a couple days they get told they can’t use it for certain things anymore.
They enshittified too soon, before people depended on them.
Oh, based on my experience, there are plenty of people convinced they can’t do anything without Claude anymore. Also based on my experience, I would be ecstatic if they actually stopped trying to do work because they sucked both with and without Claude.
Maybe not enough to fund their financials, but that was going to be a tall order anyway.
Yet another absolutely fascinating comment section. Let me try to understand what is happening here.
Are some of you upset because Claude can no longer do this? Were you perfectly happy with AI being used to decompile games and circumvent Sony’s PlayStation ecosystem when it was being used to stick it to a major corporation? But now that Anthropic has decided to prohibit this particular use of its technology, suddenly AI is terrible again? Suddenly it devalues human labor, which, incidentally, isn’t really what is happening here. In many instances, it eliminates the need for that labor altogether.
Then there are those arguing that only AI companies should be allowed to do these things, rather than independent individuals. Which is, quite frankly, a ridiculous argument. Companies have every right to dictate how their products and services are used, particularly when we’re talking about a proprietary service like Claude. You don’t own Claude. You don’t purchase the underlying technology. It belongs to Anthropic, and Anthropic gets to establish the terms under which it is made available.
So which is it? Do you oppose AI on principle, or do you only oppose it when it doesn’t serve your particular interests? Is AI the enemy of human creativity and labor, except when it’s being used to accomplish something you personally want?
I’d appreciate a little consistency from this user base. Surely that’s not too much to ask.
The user base isn’t homogenous
I like that Claude can jailbreak consoles and decomp and port games quickly. These are projects that are cool, have utility, are obnoxiously difficult and or tedious, and exclusively unpaid. Is it better if some super coder does it all? Probably, but the unpaid bit means progress is painfully slow and limited to people doing passion projects. But is it also cool I can play a bunch of retro games natively on basically any platform and then jailbreak a ps5 to run Linux and steam? Yes
I once asked Claude to check the app it vibecoded for security flaws and it didn’t want to do it.
It literally told me to look up some basic security principles and do it myself.
It literally told me to look up some basic security principles and do it myself.
I think that seems like excellent advice!
The legitimate developers I know aren’t hit by Claude restrictions, because they don’t fucking use it.
Linus Torvalds uses it. I’d consider him a legitimate developer.
“was legitimate”
Ftfy
It belongs in the trash. We’re going to look back on these large LLMs like we look at the milkman
Like they might actually be our real father?
Was bound to happen eventually. They’re going to try to make open models illegal now.
My opinions are that its fine to make llm projects that threaten corporations who rely on saas. Doesn’t mean im going to use them or that they’re any good, but I want to see these companies who are firing all their employees and throwing all their money at ai to get scourned. Will build more distrust between the corpos too.
And just to be clear its okay when they steal literally the entire world’s knowledge base. But as soon as adobe and Microsoft see a 2% drop in profit all the sudden everyone’s a terrorist, or its the worst thing to happen ever. I hate ai but I’ll root for my enemy when he’s destroying one of my original enemies, can’t wait for these companies to burn. I’d go back to the stone ages if I knew elon, Sam Altmann, etc where all dead.
I’d go back to the stone ages if I knew elon, Sam Altmann, etc where all dead.
Going back to 80’s tech where most things were still analog should do it. Pen and paper, fax machines, analog tape and vynil records
They’re training their models on my art. It’s only fair I get to use their technology in return.
Self host a QWEN model on a budget server build.
American AI is so centralized that utilizing AI, as an end user without having some loser looking over your shoulder or demanding a monthly fee, is difficult.
It’s out of the box.
They can try, but, it’s too late.
Don’t hesitate, bring them to thier knees.
Only the AI companies are allowed to plagiarize.
What exactly are you suggesting here? That using an LLM to reverse-engineer a video game, modify its code, and create an entirely new experience constitutes plagiarism?
Do you understand what plagiarism actually means? It means passing off someone else’s work as your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone uses AI to reverse-engineer software, modify an existing game, or develop an entirely new way to experience it.
There may be legitimate arguments to be made about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights, but those are entirely different discussions.
And what does the statement about AI companies being the only ones allowed to plagiarize even mean? Are you suggesting that modifying an existing video game is somehow equivalent to an AI company training a model on copyrighted material?
You’re conflating completely different concepts, and the result is an accusation that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what’s being discussed.
Your reverse engineering argument might have a point but plagiarism regarding AI should be more obvious. Indeed AI is trained on the collective publicly available knowledge humans have deposited on the internet and then sold back to the same people for a fee without any acknowledgement let alone sharing of profits in someway. It is similar to the kind of unethical behaviour where some academic publishers are employing aggressive marketing strategies to sell public science back to public at high costs. Ofcourse there is still the argument that these AI companies are only charging for operational costs, which may be true for some. But I am willing to bet money that if LLMs becomes an integral part of the modern world then they will turn down this tap to a bare trickle at exorbitant prices. Sam Altman himself confessed as much (he said something along the lines of envisioning a future where AI becomes an on demand information and skill tap, you fill in the rest). Operating something at a loss is a known capitalistic strategy to get people used to your product and drive smaller competition out of market so in a decade or so you become the monopolistic owner of an essential service.
Chatgpt won’t give me bass sheet music to Ella Fitzgerald’s version of How High the Moon, due to concerns of edit: copyright issues (not plagiarism.).
I wouldn’t put it past anthropic to deny the request.
Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
you’re right I went back into my conversations and it was indeed because of copyright issues not plagiarism
Well tell me where AI companies are giving credit
Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?
“The internet” is not actually a valid source.
Yes, I indeed want people to be named individually. The internet is not one Organisation that people generate IP for.
Of course crediting everybody would be ridiculous, but stealing the entire internet is not?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that LLMs are trained on publicly available data. In other words, they’re not stealing or pirating that data, just to simplify the argument. (Although, to be fair, some LLM developers have done exactly that and are facing legal consequences.)
Publicly available data is just that: publicly available. Anyone can access it, including individuals, businesses, and AI developers. They’re not stealing something that is freely accessible to literally everyone.
And that’s the dilemma: either that information is freely available to everyone, or it isn’t. You can’t argue that it’s free for you and me to access but somehow off-limits to OpenAI or Grok simply because they’re using it for a different purpose. That’s not how public access works.
So, they’re not stealing anything under the assumption we’re making here. To answer your original question, no, I don’t have an issue with them stealing the internet.
The thing about ownership is that unless something else is specified, everything is ARR by default.
Adding insult to injury, they don’t care about licenses…
You may be allowed to consume but not to sell that content
But they’re not selling that content. I cannot begin to tell you how often I encounter this exact line of reasoning.
If a painter creates an original painting inspired by Rembrandt, Rembrandt’s estate doesn’t receive royalties simply because his work served as inspiration.
LLMs and other AI models generate novel content. They don’t simply copy established works and regurgitate them verbatim. The training process allows these models to identify patterns, relationships, and structures in enormous datasets, which they then use to generate new material.
As usual, much of the anti-AI rhetoric on this platform comes from a place of absolute ignorance regarding how these models actually work, how they function, and how they’re trained.
Hilarious
“Give us all your code for free who cares about copyright anyway”
“NOOOO YOU CANT USE OUR PRODUCT TO GET FRE CODE 😡😡😡”
Local LLMs are the way to go on AI, they can’t suddenly change the model up on you. And also, I guess Anthropic just wants their models to be more useless ahead of going public? Because I presume people that want to use AI, who don’t care where they send their data to, but don’t want to nagged about how they can’t do benign programming and analysis tasks, will just choose another model provider.
This is where they’re gonna make things less secure as far as national security - foreign local models won’t have these restrictions for obvious reasons, so people will gladly install those and ignore crippled domestic options.
Yes we must support our domestic Cambodian models!
It’s more about not spooking investors. If it’s known that your AI is being used to reverse engineer software from well off corporations. They’re going to be a little less likely to invest if 1: They’re connected to any of those corporations 2: They’re concerned about future lawsuits heading their way.
And of course the actual fear of potential lawsuits landing on their door, or being named in lawsuits against people using their AI to do this.
Yes, if you want control over AI you MUST host it yourself in reality.
Why? Reverse engineering is neither unethical or illegal.
I never said it was. But, I’m also not an investor. I’m just saying the kind of things that scare off investors. And this would be a big one.
What? The literal extermination of the human race is not enough to scare off investors.
Have you seen the investment in fossil fuels. 😄
🤣😂🥲🙂😐😔🥺😭
Killing the entire species is absolutely less of a concern for investors than copyright violations.
The best part of paying for a coding assistant is discovering halfway through your project that it has developed opinions about what your project is allowed to be. Imagine your IDE refusing to compile because it thinks your game feels a little too much like Tetris. At least a compiler doesn’t pretend it’s doing you a favor.
I got shut down by it two days ago. It suddenly told me that the project I was working on had tripped some kind of guard, that it couldn’t continue working with me on it, and it couldn’t tell me why. I just went back to my local Qwen model. I can’t see this doing great things for selling Claude subscriptions.
As it was before AI. Local is the answer when shared is at the mercy of interests antagonistic to the users.
I think that’s what they wanted from the very beginning, to accelerate projects that are socially convenient for them, but not those that are not.
There’s that issue with universal machines that some people don’t like that others are allowed to make universal decisions.
I… Completely agree and my comment wasn’t meant for you. You have no idea how often I encounter people that simply do not understand or know exactly what these llms do and they simply dislike them for the sake of being part of the bandwagon, I am generally irritated by these people. The ones that say out loud that they hate everything that AI does and then when it does something generally useful and they don’t hate that one particular thing. It’s extremely two-faced and inconsistent and absolutely bothers me.
you’re on the wrong platform buddy.
go run off to Reddit where the bots will agree with whatever bullshit you’re spewing.
I am on the right platform, and I’ll use it whenever and however I see fit, within the TOS I agreed to when I created my account.
Maybe you should run off to Reddit, where you can make some kind of moral stand against the things you disagree with, rather than running around here in your own little yes-man echo chamber.
lemmy overwhelmingly disapproves of AI/LLM use. join the dbzer0 instance if you want to have a positive experience with that pile of shit you call an opinion.
I don’t care what Lemmy is overwhelmingly for or against. At all. I’m going to call out bandwagon bullshit every time I see it for as long as I feel like doing it.
Once again. You should go to that instance and do something about it.
And say what you want about “my opinion” it is correct.
As long as we’re in agreement.
